• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

My argument against materialism

dlorde said:
Hey, no problem, you admitted the error - respect for that. I may have misjudged the motivation behind the diversion, in which case I apologise.


Wait, I can't point out an error until I've 'created' something, and then you'll expect it to be perfect? Do I detect a hint of annoyance?

I don't claim to be error free - we all make mistakes - but when someone tries to correct a knowledgeable contributor with what I believe to be a factual inaccuracy, it grates, and I'll pull them up on it - and sometimes it takes a while to get an acknowledgement of the error - but we got there in the end - fair play to you.

If you're upset that I criticised your Noah's Flood article, then <meh> - I called it as I saw it.
Click to expand...
Hey, no problem, you admitted the error - respect for that. I may have misjudged the motivation behind the diversion, in which case I apologise.

It wasn't a diversion. It was the creation of a thought experiment.
Wait, I can't point out an error until I've 'created' something, and then you'll expect it to be perfect? Do I detect a hint of annoyance?

I don't claim to be error free - we all make mistakes - but when someone tries to correct a knowledgeable contributor with what I believe to be a factual inaccuracy, it grates, and I'll pull them up on it - and sometimes it takes a while to get an acknowledgement of the error - but we got there in the end - fair play to you.

If you're upset that I criticised your Noah's Flood article, then <meh> - I called it as I saw it.

My correction was in context after two posts containing the thought experiment. Go back and read the history including Dancing David's comments.

My annoyance is based on the pattern of your participation i.e. mainly all criticism. Okay criticism is part of the play but when one never creates as well ... yes it's annoying. So ... keep up the critiquing of others... but I hope you also at some point create something.
 
Pixy Misa re: post # 1951: If you say that EM is vital in the maintenance of planets i.e. preventing them from collapsing into something else. It's the same as saying EM holds them together. Therefore EM has to be either more important or at least as important than as gravity in holding planets together.

Okay ... then, in general terms you agree with me. We differ on much of the details and you don't want to quote any other sources. I can be corrected; but I need more than what you are capable of offering or more than you are willing to share. If I find something convincing my own or via others ... I'd even acknowledge it. Until then ... we differ ... so what else is new in your world?
 
kenkoskinen said:
Pixy Misa re: post # 1951: If you say that EM is vital in the maintenance of planets i.e. preventing them from collapsing into something else. It's the same as saying EM holds them together.
Click to expand...

Uh, no, it isn't.

"EMF keeps planets from collapsing into themselves" != "EMF holds planets together".

"Holds planets together" means that it keeps them from drifting apart, not that it keeps them from falling inward.
 
When I want to respond to you, I click the Reply button, and I see this curious stuff:
[QUOTE=kenkoskinen;6961636]I agree ... can anyone clearly explain how it works? I still don't get how it's done.[/QUOTE]​
I want it to look like this:
kenkoskinen said:
I agree ... can anyone clearly explain how it works?
Click to expand...
Sure.
I still don't get how it's done.
Click to expand...
Read this reply.​
So I do this:
[QUOTE=kenkoskinen;6961636]I agree ... can anyone clearly explain how it works?[/QUOTE]
Sure.
[QUOTE]I still don't get how it's done.[/QUOTE]
Read this reply.​
Then I hit Preview Post to make sure it looks like what I want it to, and submit it.
 
Global EMF Repulsion Theory?

Pure Argent said:
Uh, no, it isn't.

"EMF keeps planets from collapsing into themselves" != "EMF holds planets together".

"Holds planets together" means that it keeps them from drifting apart, not that it keeps them from falling inward.
Click to expand...

I thank you for your post.

If I step on a bug with my boot I'm trying to crush it so it will become something else, a splat on the floor. If something prevents me from crushing it, I can say that something is holding it together. I think the distinction you made is meaningless i.e. unnecessary.

To simplify communications I'm going to christen this theory which is unknown to me as "Global EMF Repulsion Theory or "GEMFR."

Physicists commonly and simply explain the reason why Jupiter, for example, doesn't collapse is it doesn't have enough mass. GEMFR implies that even if you add more matter to the planet you would also get more EMF repulsion. The two would balance out & Jupiter could never collapse. There shouldn't be any stars, black holes etc.

Even if GEMFR is a real theory, I think it suffers from the aforementioned flaw and is unnecessary to explain the physics. Pure Agent you can debate my points if you like but I really need to view several references by the physics community on GEMFR. I've never even seen it in the literature nor heard it mentioned in any lecture. There are lots of fringe ideas in physics but I need to know that GEMFR or whatever it's called is accepted by the main stream and the reasons why it doesn't suffer from any flaws.

I assume you learned of GEMFR from somewhere, so please share the sources. I don't find the Roche limit reference that Pixy Misa referred to, or most anything she has said on this subject, convincing. I look forward to studying the GEMFR references.
 
Last edited:
Thanks Dancing David & yy2bggggs for the help. I was using the Quick Reply screen & didn't know you have to Go Advanced to be able to preview posts. I also found the wrap quote tags icon. Now, I think my posts should make more sense!

Thanks again!
 
punshhh said:
I see is this where I stated there was to much maths for my liking which you refered to?

I was joking about the grand unified theory, I think I'll give that a miss right now.
If anyone has it worked out amongst you I'd like to have a look, I should be able to understand the maths.
Click to expand...

:dl:
 
punshhh said:
Try to pin down reality and it tends to become rather elusive.
Click to expand...

No, it doesn't. Where did you get that gem?

punshhh said:
It seems rather short sighted to me to assume that what humanity has figured out for itself about reality is the whole story.
Click to expand...

Who said it was the whole story? There's still lots to do.

punshhh said:
You only need to reflect on the history of scientific understanding to observe that what was considered the assumed wisdom of the day, was repeatedly changed and updated as new steps forward in understanding occured.
Click to expand...

Yes. By applying the scientific method, not by any of the gibberish you keep spouting.

punshhh said:
Has this now finished have we achieved scientific enlightenment?
Click to expand...

No. And we probably never will. Your point?

punshhh said:
On a larger scale how do we know that the foundations of the reality we know and understand are not perhaps quite different to how we observe them.
Click to expand...

We know, because we observe "them". What do you think reality is?

punshhh said:
Rather like the early flat earther's assumption that the world was flat because they could not understand or comprehend that the world could be a sphere.
Click to expand...

And how did we find out that the Earth was not flat? By appealing to gibberish or by science?
 
punshhh said:
Who is ignoring what humanity has figured out?
Click to expand...

You.

punshhh said:
Really pixy to consider that there might be more to existence than what we know through human endeavor is not to ignore any of it.
Click to expand...

Human endeavor is by definition the only thing humans have through which to learn about existence and reality. To assume otherwise is just stupid.

punshhh said:
It is only to accept that we may not yet be in full possession of the full picture of reality rather like the flat earthers of old.
Click to expand...

Could you to point to a post where someone claimed we have the full picture? I won't be holding my breath.
 
kenkoskinen said:
Pixy Misa re: post #1938 Your many one word, one line answers, don't explain anything. Try including some references and explanations, not just your magical incantations. The issue isn't what I apparently know or think about where tensile strength come from, it's about what your reference article clearly states or doesn't state. If you need another source document, then use it. If the EM force is globally repulsive on all planets including gas giants like Jupiter then it proves my case, not yours. It means EM & gravity hold planets together. Not just gravity. Also any divergence from roundness of a celestial body isn't conclusive proof that gravity isn't affective. It takes time to acquire such a form under gravity's influence. Let's get real. Your skate around ... and avoid ... and one-line answers ... but it's not real. The Pauli exclusion principle isn't small bananas. This is the first sign that you are falling apart with your silly argument.

I didn't misread the article on the moons and the rigid and liquid Roche limits. Cite it if I did. I think, you won't do that because it would take more than a single word. You didn't cite a single scientific study or reference. One word, one line magic. It's baloney!
Click to expand...

I agree trying to get anything out of pixy, is like getting blood out of a stone.

You wait until he starts using the "no" word, he'll really tie you up in knots then.
 
punshhh said:
I agree trying to get anything out of pixy, is like getting blood out of a stone.
Click to expand...
Nonsense. I answer your questions when they're meaningful; I point out when your questions are based on false assumptions.

You can't get what you want, because what you want doesn't coincide with reality. That's not my problem.
 
PixyMisa said:
Nonsense. I answer your questions when they're meaningful; I point out when your questions are based on false assumptions.

You can't get what you want, because what you want doesn't coincide with reality. That's not my problem.
Click to expand...

Materialists tell of matter, please explain matter as it is understood by materialists?

I have read the wiki references on this, unfortunately I cannot debate with Wiki.

If you were to explain it personally we may be able to discuss what we are refering to and reach an understanding.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom